Seems strange to me that Nikon didn't offer a mRAW and/or sRAW on their D800. To me it suggests they're slightly out of touch with what people actually want

I can only speculate on what drives the purchasing decisions of other people. From my experience of owning alll the 5D series of Canon cameras as well as most of the xxD series as well as a Nikon D800 and D800E, I have never needed to use a small raw format ever. However I do find that the various cropping sizes on the D800 are very useful. The most useful is that I can use full frame or aps-c lenses on the same camera. This would be revolutionary for Canon. But what Canon could do is to allow DX (aps-c) crop mode on an full frame camera.

Where do I use it. Let us say I'm using my 300mm for a landscape shot accross a bay and then I spot an some wildlife where I need a longer reach. I can quickly go into crop mode and choose the amount of crop by choosing the image area thereby saving the file in a smaller raw file as well as having a faster FPS. Canon could do this but so far they haven't because their full frame cameras don't have enough MP to do the crop and still have enough MP for the frame. Someday will really high MP, perhaps all cameras will allow a digital crop size so you can get any framing that you want (maybe even square - Nikon D800 has a very pleasant 5x4 format choice that saves some Raw size).

Having more (real) resolution at no cost is always welcome, and allows for more flexibility in post.

As for the other stuff, it does not appeal to me. I dont want in-camera downscaling, cropping, or extra quantization, even if it gives me modest reduction in filesize/increases in framerate.

-h

I know quite a few nikon shooters that would have bought d800's if it had mRAW sRAW. It's the #1 thing mentioned when i hear nikon folk asking for upgrade advice. For weddings, nikon shooters recommend the d700, d3 and d3s because the files size on the d800 is too large for that kind of work.

Here are some quotes from nikon users:

" I would look for a used D700, D3, or D3s. The D800 files are going to be way too big for your needs. The D4 is somewhat overpriced for what you are going to need."

"D3s is the leader for low light, D4 is a piece of junk. D800 is crap unless you're in a studio. Wouldn't touch a canon unless 5DMrkIII"

" Best wedding camera on the market today is the D3s. The best value wedding camera on the market today is the D700."

" I agree with Brady, D3s is a beautiful camera. Shooting with 2 32GB CF cards with one for immediate backup is a great way to shoot a wedding with confidence! D800 is a body geared towards the landscape/commercial world but not for weddings. D4 was a dud."

Seems strange to me that Nikon didn't offer a mRAW and/or sRAW on their D800. To me it suggests they're slightly out of touch with what people actually want

I never use small or medium raw, nor do I know why anyone would. The point of raw is non-processed information; down-interpolation is processing.

Yes, the point of RAW is non processed information, allowing for post processing in 16 bit. It's quite possible users may want to pp images that aren't going to be greatly enlarged or used for web viewing. The larger the MP the more useful this mode for those that understand the true might of 22 MP ( let alone 40 ! )

Hobby Shooter

Canon can call it whatever it wants, but the product line can certainly benefit from a true successor to the 1DsIII. I have no use for a mega megapixel body, but know lots of people that are still hanging on to their 1DsIIIs because neither the 1Dx or 5DIII are compelling enough reasons to trade them in.

IMHO, it makes more sense to build a high megapixel body around the 5D platform, as the 1-series build quality and form factor are overkill for studio work. A lot of the used 1DsIII bodies on ebay have well over 100,000 clicks but look practically new.

For someone who doesnt't have years of experience with the Canon product line. What caracterized the 1DsIII?

For someone who doesnt't have years of experience with the Canon product line. What caracterized the 1DsIII?

For its time, the 1DsIII was the king of resolution and overall IQ, which made it the go-to workhorse for many studio photogs. However, it's state of the art (for its time) AF and respectable 5 FPS burst rate made it an extremely versatile tool that could be used for occasional action and sports photography as well.

Other than high-ISO improvements, the 5DIII doesn't offer much if any improvement in overall IQ or resolution, but then again, the 5DIII is less than half the price of what the 1DsIII sold for when new. If I already owned a 1DsIII I'd probably still be shooting with one, but I didn't own one, so I'm more than thrilled with my 5DIII

For someone who doesnt't have years of experience with the Canon product line. What caracterized the 1DsIII?

For its time, the 1DsIII was the king of resolution and overall IQ, which made it the go-to workhorse for many studio photogs. However, it's state of the art (for its time) AF and respectable 5 FPS burst rate made it an extremely versatile tool that could be used for occasional action and sports photography as well.

Other than high-ISO improvements, the 5DIII doesn't offer much if any improvement in overall IQ or resolution, but then again, the 5DIII is less than half the price of what the 1DsIII sold for when new. If I already owned a 1DsIII I'd probably still be shooting with one, but I didn't own one, so I'm more than thrilled with my 5DIII

I never owned an 1DsIII either, not my budget anyway. But coming from a 30D my 5DIII is a huge step up and it blows me away...anytime I pick it up. If it doesn't it's always the dude behind ;-)

Seems strange to me that Nikon didn't offer a mRAW and/or sRAW on their D800. To me it suggests they're slightly out of touch with what people actually want

I never use small or medium raw, nor do I know why anyone would. The point of raw is non-processed information; down-interpolation is processing.

You don't know why anyone would? I'll tell you. If you're a sports photog, and have a MEDIUM amount of time to get photos out, you can still shoot in sRAW and still have a lot of processing freedom over JPEG. It comes in really, really handy when you have to shoot good, quick shots, but still have time to process a bit to print an 8 x 10. I shot 5000 sRAW files at the GLIAC Swim meet and I was really thrilled over the IQ when processed and converted to jpg. Shooting just in jpg would not have maintained the IQ I was able to maintain in sRAW, especially with a 1DX where the sRAW files were amazing. The whole reason to shoot sRAW is much lower file size, much faster upload to computer time, while still maintaining a high level of IQ, close to RAW, but better than jpg.

And as you said elsewhere on this site, without high fps, you can't take good photos

Obviously the mods removing your previous remark and susequent rebuttals to the same effect wasn't sufficient to prevent you from having another go at the expired horse....

Thank you for your insightful comment. Now would you like to comment on the topic of the 5Dx/4D?

...and thank you for flagrantly misrepresenting what I said. Now would you like to provide a link to where I stated, "Without high fps, you can't take good photos,"

You repeatedly insisted that high fps were required to take good photos and that skill was no replacement for this which obviously leads one to conclude that you're insisting that high fps is required to get good photos.

Quote

or, perhaps you'd like to suggest that the 5Dx/4D will actually be a lens, and not a camera?

Seems strange to me that Nikon didn't offer a mRAW and/or sRAW on their D800. To me it suggests they're slightly out of touch with what people actually want

I never use small or medium raw, nor do I know why anyone would. The point of raw is non-processed information; down-interpolation is processing.

You don't know why anyone would? I'll tell you. If you're a sports photog, and have a MEDIUM amount of time to get photos out, you can still shoot in sRAW and still have a lot of processing freedom over JPEG. It comes in really, really handy when you have to shoot good, quick shots, but still have time to process a bit to print an 8 x 10. I shot 5000 sRAW files at the GLIAC Swim meet and I was really thrilled over the IQ when processed and converted to jpg. Shooting just in jpg would not have maintained the IQ I was able to maintain in sRAW, especially with a 1DX where the sRAW files were amazing. The whole reason to shoot sRAW is much lower file size, much faster upload to computer time, while still maintaining a high level of IQ, close to RAW, but better than jpg.

Well said! It also comes in handy when you know you want to shoot at really high ISO, and you know there is resolution loss at that setting...so why waste file size on something that isn't using all the pixels anyway? Still way better than shooting a jpg. Not every photographer shoots in a studio at ISO 100, with strobes. Some of us are outside shooting fast moving things, even when it's getting dark. If the final image can't be printed at 24 x 36 at 300 dpi and have every one of those dots razor sharp with real detail, so what?

i don't have any use for sRAW either. when i'm shooting sports or something like that where i might crank out thousands of shots i shoot jpg. i dial it in, and shoot jpg. if i had the memory card space, wanted my camera buffer to bog down(that could mostly be fixed with a fast card), and had time to fool around on a PC i'd shoot this stuff in RAW. but obviously people differ. that's cool. options are cool. honestly, the only reason i came to this thread is because the title reminded me of a scene from a "revenge of the nerds" movie. the characters are stoned on a deserted island and ...... "what if cat, really spelled dog?" yup, i sure am something....

" I would look for a used D700, D3, or D3s. The D800 files are going to be way too big for your needs. The D4 is somewhat overpriced for what you are going to need."

"D3s is the leader for low light, D4 is a piece of junk. D800 is crap unless you're in a studio. Wouldn't touch a canon unless 5DMrkIII"

" Best wedding camera on the market today is the D3s. The best value wedding camera on the market today is the D700."

" I agree with Brady, D3s is a beautiful camera. Shooting with 2 32GB CF cards with one for immediate backup is a great way to shoot a wedding with confidence! D800 is a body geared towards the landscape/commercial world but not for weddings. D4 was a dud."

I have seen my share of professional and/or accomplished photographers giving poor advice. ("yeah, sonny, get one of them cameras with large pixels, those will have less noise"). I have no idea if the people you quote give good advice.

LOL...I find it funny that as opposed to hearing the other side of the fence recommending lower mp'ed bodies for weddings in your mind = obviously bad advice. Why is it so hard to accept that if you don't need to shoot to print 40x60 or larger a lower mp camera is bad?? What I find even funnier is that in a standard photography forum (not nikon or canon), you see many nikon users telling younger photogs that the 5d3 is a great idea if your upgrading to FF and are not invested in glass? File size does matter if you shoot 2000 images or more per event you shoot.

For someone who doesnt't have years of experience with the Canon product line. What caracterized the 1DsIII?

For its time, the 1DsIII was the king of resolution and overall IQ, which made it the go-to workhorse for many studio photogs. However, it's state of the art (for its time) AF and respectable 5 FPS burst rate made it an extremely versatile tool that could be used for occasional action and sports photography as well.

Other than high-ISO improvements, the 5DIII doesn't offer much if any improvement in overall IQ or resolution, but then again, the 5DIII is less than half the price of what the 1DsIII sold for when new. If I already owned a 1DsIII I'd probably still be shooting with one, but I didn't own one, so I'm more than thrilled with my 5DIII

I never owned an 1DsIII either, not my budget anyway. But coming from a 30D my 5DIII is a huge step up and it blows me away...anytime I pick it up. If it doesn't it's always the dude behind ;-)

Thanks Mr Beast!Pedro, same for me, I came from 60D to the 5D3 and although I am far from being able to use it to its full capacity I am often stunned by its capabilities. Bad pictures are because of me.

I owned a 1Ds Mark III. It was amazing how accurately it could reproduce skin tones. I'd say no other camera can get skin tones as "correct" as the 1Ds Mark III can. With that said, it couldn't go anywhere near ISO 800 or higher like the 5D Mark III can. Overall, the 5D Mark III is much more versatile and has outdated the 1Ds Mark III and I probably wouldn't even consider getting one, especially since a new 5D Mark III is often cheaper.

However, it wasn't made to do the same things the 5D Mark III was made to do. That's why I think the 1Ds Mark II and Mark III are both excellent studio cameras. But if you show me a studio photo from a 1Ds Mark III shot and a 5D Mark II shot let's say, you won't be able to tell which is which. The only difference is skin tone. I still can't get over how well those cameras could do.

With a newer, higher MP camera, I'm sure it will be the true successor to the 1Ds Mark III. It'll be 39-46 mp, will be low fps, and low-ISO only.